Is the Waqf Act of 1995 Valid? SC Questions Centre and States
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has taken a significant step by issuing a notice to the Centre and state governments, questioning the validity of the Waqf Act, 1995. This pivotal case raises crucial issues surrounding secularism and minority rights in India.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court is reviewing the Waqf Act, 1995.
- The petition raises crucial constitutional questions.
- Debates center around secularism and religious laws in India.
- The outcome may impact minority rights and legal frameworks.
- Key legal principles invoked include equality and justice.
New Delhi, May 27 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has issued a notice to both the Centre and state governments regarding a petition that contests the legitimacy of various provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995.
At the start of the proceedings, a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai indicated that it might dismiss the challenge to the constitutional validity of the 1995 legislation purely based on the issue of delay.
“We will dismiss on the grounds of delay. Why are you questioning the 1995 Act in 2025?” the Bench, which also included Justice A.G. Masih, asked.
In defense, the petitioner's lawyer referenced a notice from the top court in 2021 regarding a challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991. He argued that the current petition scrutinizes the constitutional validity of the Waqf Act, 1995, as well as the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013 and the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, stated that there should be no complications if the current petition is combined with the ongoing batch of challenges to the Waqf Act, 1995.
ASG Bhati mentioned that the Supreme Court has already established that it would not consider the petitions regarding the Waqf Act, 1995, together with those questioning the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
After reviewing the arguments, the CJI Gavai-led Bench issued a notice to the Centre and state governments and connected this case with the pending challenges to the Waqf Act, 1995.
The petition put forth before the apex court claims that the Waqf Act, 1995 violates Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 300A of the Constitution, thereby necessitating its “abrogation” and the enactment of a secular law aligned with the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience.
“While the Act governs the properties of Muslims, there are no comparable laws for adherents of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism, Bahaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity. Thus, it fundamentally undermines the secularism, unity, and integrity of our nation. Notably, 'Waqf' isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution,” the petition asserted.
Furthermore, it stated that if the contested Act was created to safeguard the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 29 and 30, it should be inclusive of all minorities, including those who practice Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Bahaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity, not exclusively Muslims.
Point of View
It’s vital to approach the ongoing debates surrounding the Waqf Act with a balanced perspective. This case not only highlights the complexities of our legal framework but also challenges us to consider how laws can uphold the values of equality and justice for all communities in India.
NationPress
08/06/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Waqf Act, 1995?
The Waqf Act, 1995 is legislation in India that regulates the administration of Muslim charitable endowments, known as waqf.
Why is the validity of the Waqf Act being challenged?
The validity is being challenged on grounds that it violates various articles of the Indian Constitution, thus necessitating its review and potential abrogation.
What are the constitutional articles cited against the Waqf Act?
The petition cites Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 300A of the Constitution, highlighting concerns over equality and minority rights.
What was the Supreme Court's initial reaction to the petition?
The Supreme Court, led by CJI B.R. Gavai, indicated it might dismiss the petition based on delay, questioning the timing of the challenge.
What implications does this case have for India?
This case could set significant precedents regarding the treatment of minority laws and the balance between religious governance and secularism in India.
